Also it probably isn't canon if it has 'not authorised by Paramount Pictures' in large letters on the front. Or if it contains the words 'Completely Useless'or 'The Unauthorised"
Aren't the Franz Josef designs blueprints canon, since they were blessed by Roddenberry himself? I know Phil considered them to be canon. Also, because the TOS TechMan comes from the same source, is it canon?
What about "Captains' Logs" by Mark A. Altman and Edward Gross?
I think you should add the Omnipedia and Star Trek Encyclopedia on CD-ROM.
I liked the completely useless startrek encycopedia. It was a like a brittish version of the nitpickers guide. Who else would mock lumply heads.
Has anyone ever heard of a book called Worlds of The Federation.
Yes, and it is wildly out of date. It says that Cochrane made First Contact with Alpha Centauri in 2055 and other huge errors.
It also treats TAS as cannon, speaks of a Swift War with the Klingons, Says the Feragi are the Federation's main enemy, and speaks about some aliens that havn't been used in Trek in over 30 years. and says Metloks, yes METLOKS are members of the federation. It's also at least 10 years old.
At the time the book was published, stating Cochrane made first contact with Alpha Centauri was not an error. It was not until First Contact that it is established that it was made with Vulcans.
What's wrong with treating TAS as canon? One thing to its credit, it didn't play fast and loose with established Trek history like later incarnations did.
The book says nothing about the Ferengi being the Federation's main enemy. On the contrary, it states "Recent encounters with the mysterious Ferengi have been tense but peaceful, with the exception of a few limited military engagements." This is in harmony with what had been shown on TV at the time it was published.
So what if it speaks of aliens that haven't been used in over 30 years? Does this mean they no longer exist in the ST universe?
It says of the Melkots, "Only determined effort by the Federation has convinced the Melkot to participate in a limited cultural exchange." Again, this is in harmony with what we saw at the conclusion of "Spectre of the Gun".
This book is actually one of the more accurate reference works and shows a meticulous knowledge of Trek history on the part of the authors. Sure, it takes a lot of artistic liberties, but these add to the enjoyment of it and embellish, not contradict, what was established in the episodes.
The Third Edition of the Encyclopedia is now out - unfortunately all of the new stuff is added as a supplement at the back of the book rather than being fully integrated with the rest of the text. This means that if you want to look up, say, Captain Sisko you have to read his entry in the main body of the book then turn to the supplement to see the information added for this edition.
And they STILL haven't got the alphabetization sorted out: the entry for (for example) Vulcan comes after Vulcan spice tea. This is because each headword ends with a period and when the entries have been sorted into order the space separating 'Vulcan' and 'spice' comes ahead of the period after 'Vulcan' on its own.
Matt, by Metloks do you mean Melkots, from Spectre (TOS)?
METLOK!!!!
In "The Joy of Trek" The book for people who have to live with trekkers, under Key Troi Episodes, it gives an entry for Disaster, then describes The Loss.
There was a book published in 1996, written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, called "Star Trek Phase II-The Lost Series." It was a trade paperback that went into exquisite detail regarding the aborted 1977 "Phase II" series. One thing that I never knew was that despite all new sets (a lot of them became the basis for ST-TMP sets), the design of TOS uniforms would be retained, as a cost-saving measure.
Could somebody please include an entry for "Star Trek Star Charts"? I've just read that book, and it completely blew me over.
Todd Pence: I agree, the book is an interesting read, but useless as a modern Star Trek Reference. It is a good a guide as any to the Classic Expanded Universe of the 70's and 80's.
Hi! I just saw a copy of the excellent reference guide, "Star Trek 101" at a bookstore, and I intend to buy it soon.
It has overviews and a synopsis of every episode of every series, and the movies. It also has kind of a "FAQ"-feel to it, explaining things about characters and alien races that some people might not already know.
But what I don't know is whether or not it's official and authoritative. I believe it is, but I'm not totally sure.
And yes, the recent "Star Charts" and "Starship Spotter" books are also very well done.
But it sure is too bad that there will not be a fourth edition of the Trekclopedia. I was hoping there would be, so I could read about the rest of Voyager, and Nemesis. Of course, it would also include Enterprise stuff as well, something that I did not like very much.
I still wish they'd make it, though. It's apparently too costly to produce and they don't make enough of a profit on it. Oh well.
But what I don't know is whether or not it's official and authoritative.
In StarTrek written works are not cannon - The technical guides are not 'officially' cannon, even though the TNG tech guide was written by the production staff and used as a guide during the series run.
I have Star Trek 101 now, and yes, it is an official ST book, with the CBS and Paramount symbols on the back!
Actaully I thought that any unofficial and unauthorized book about Star Trek couldn't even have the words "Star Trek" in it's title.
For example: "The Unauthorized Guide To The Next Generation/Voyager".
Also, "The Unauthorized Trek A-Z", which I have had three copies of because they keep wearing out, is one of my favorite unofficial books about ST, even though it has no entry on Saavik whatsoever. How could the authors overlook her?
Anyway, i just thought I'd mention it.
Here's something I thought I would add.
"Ships Of The Line" is a hardcover with all color portraits, as well as information about the various starships in the Star Trek Universe.
It's been out for a little while, and I hope to get it at some point.
Personally, I like The Worlds Of The Federation, even though it is decidedly non-canonical.
Some of the info included is obviously false, but the "extended universe" information on some of the races and planets is really quite interesting.
It is a great source of info about the Animated Series races and their worlds, by the way.
But like I said, it's non-canon.
Scott N: The Franz Joseph stuff was declared non canon after he had a disagreement with Gene Rodenberry.
I personally love
The Captain Kirk Page website
by Jay B,
www thecaptainkirkpage.com